User talk:Licks-rocks/Archives/2024

May 2024

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Question about Gay's Against Groomers

Wouldn't it be more correct to say they're anti-trans? I saw the Self-Hating Jews analogy but that doesn't make sense, they're not hating gay people their hating trans people, a different set of people that gets lumped in with them. I'm not saying i don't support trans people i myself have nothing against trans people, I'm just wondering why we chose that instead of something a bit more specific. Sorry for the bother.ᑯᕆᐳᓐ (talk)

We work based on what the sources say, and the recent RFC mentioned in the "frequently asked questions" establishes that there's ample evidence in reliable sources that "Anti-LGBT" is a reasonable descriptor for this group. There's also plenty of evidence in the article itself of them going after drag events, which are a gay tradition, not a trans one. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Peer reviewers

About this comment: Have you ever done peer-review work? I haven't, but I have talked to a couple of people who did. My impression is that most peer reviewers aren't experts with big reputations; they seem to mostly be people who have advanced degrees but have fairly low-status positions, like post-doc researchers or even grad students. It's unpaid, anonymous work, so there's not much incentive to do it. The reviewers are often published authors but it's not necessarily a requirement, and even when they're published, they're not necessarily the lead authors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

We are in full agreement on peer review being a flawed process. FWIW, I don't think the view that mainly post docs and (even) grad students do it is accurate. I don't know a single grad student doing peer review and from my experience being around academics a lot, it's mostly PhD's and up that are being contacted for it. And I do think a PhD in a relevant field is usually going to qualify as an expert. _{not that I would necessarily argue for inclusion of every PhD with an opinion, obviously. WP:DUE is still relevant there.}

Anyway, thanks for pointing out WP:MEDSAY, I hadn't found that one yet and I do think it's enlightening. I considered removing the name of the journal in my earlier rewording of the section but I decided against it since i was worried phrasing it like "The Cass Review was criticized for..." would be interpreted by void and Colin as me or whoever did it trying to make the story seem bigger than it was, and I couldn't come up with a better approach on the spot.-Licks-rocks (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I know a grad student (then at the "ABD" level) who was invited to do peer review. IMO it is not an unreasonable choice for a small field.

I assume that every word in that article is going be wikilawyered over endlessly. If we provide in-text attribution, we make it sound small, and someone will be upset. If we don't, we make it sound big, and someone will be irritated. I think the passive voice is a better choice, but perhaps that's because I personally dislike having non-notable BLPs named in articles, even under the most positive circumstances. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah! I see! I'm incorrect on the English translation of grad student. I always assumed it meant pre-MSc but post-BSc, but you're using it to describe what I would in my own language call a PhD student or PhD candidate. (or, if we're being lazy, we usually just call them "the PhD's" to be honest, as I did above) --Licks-rocks (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about that much before. I think that 'grad student' gets used both ways in English. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)